MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Paving Paradise? Measuring Farmland Loss in Southern Ontario

2018· article· en· W3011826641 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sara Epp, Emma Drake

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyPlan (archaeology)AgricultureSubdivisionEnvironmental planningAgricultural economicsEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceArchaeologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Farmland in Ontario is under immense pressure fromdevelopment associated with population growth andurbanization. In many communities, farmland is sacrificedfor residential subdivisions, commercial developments andaggregate operations, among others. While protectionistpolicies such as the Greenbelt Act appear to stop somedevelopment, farmland continues to be lost to non-farmland uses and a policy failure is assumed. Thispresentation will explore the results of a project thatmeasured the amount of farmland lost to non-farm landuses through official plan amendments. This methodologywas applied to 15 counties and regions in southern Ontario and provides accurate andtimely data regarding farmland loss and an assessment on the strength of the GreenbeltAct. This presentation will discuss thisground-breakingdata and presentrecommendations regarding planning for agricultural in Ontario.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207